On Saturday 03 July 2010 09:33:19 Lubos Kolouch wrote:
Oystein Viggen, Fri, 02 Jul 2010 08:15:03 +0200:
For btrfs with lots of snapshots, I believe btrfs device add of the
new device followed by btrfs device remove of the old one would be the
most convenient.
Øystein
This solution
Oystein Viggen, Fri, 02 Jul 2010 08:15:03 +0200:
For btrfs with lots of snapshots, I believe btrfs device add of the
new device followed by btrfs device remove of the old one would be the
most convenient.
Øystein
This solution if very elegant and cool - if you can put the discs into one
* [Matt Brown]
With backed up files consisting of hard links, I usually use dd to copy
the file systems at the block level
# dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/sdb bs=20M
and then expand the file system. This is because I found that tools like
rsync, while usually fast, are extremely slow when
On 1 July 2010 11:28, Lubos Kolouch lubos.kolo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I am testing btrfs on one of our backup servers
(many millions of files, 1.5TB size, running on (non-btrfs-provided-)
raid5).
I am using subvolumes/snapshots with following rsync.
It works very well, but I would
Daniel J Blueman, Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:26:10 +0100:
What is the correct way to do this?
The only way to do this preserving duplication is to use hardlinks
between duplicated files (which reference counts the inode), and use
'rsync -H'.
Dan
But when the files are on different snaphots,
On 07/01/2010 05:33 AM, Lubos Kolouch wrote:
Daniel J Blueman, Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:26:10 +0100:
What is the correct way to do this?
The only way to do this preserving duplication is to use hardlinks
between duplicated files (which reference counts the inode), and use
'rsync -H'.
Dan
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:33:59AM +, Lubos Kolouch wrote:
Daniel J Blueman, Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:26:10 +0100:
What is the correct way to do this?
The only way to do this preserving duplication is to use hardlinks
between duplicated files (which reference counts the inode), and use
